W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2007

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] update from the editor

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:12:19 +0200
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tsbdetut64w2qv@annevk.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:21:30 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
> * Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> If one UA treats Content-Type:text/foobar as XML and another UA does not
>> and a site starts relying on text/foobar being treated as XML we have a
>> problem.
> We have very many problems of this nature right now. If I use XML 1.1 my
> site won't work in Firefox, if I use CP850 as character encoding it will
> not work in Opera, if I use Transfer-Encoding:gzip it will not work in
> Internet Explorer, if I use XMLHttpRequest.responseBody it will not work
> (I guess) in Safari.
> All these are reasonable features to implement and use, and the draft
> does not prohibit them in any way.

The draft clearly indicates that extensions should be discussed on  

> So we are quite used to accept this
> "risk". There is also a risk that by making the specification difficult
> to understand and prohibiting reasonable implementation decisions, that
> some browser vendors simply choose to ignore it. So I am afraid simply
> the remote possibility of a "problem" is not a good enough reason.

I would hope that implementors channel such feedback to us. I don't  
believe the specification is difficult to understand, however.

> I was unable, by the way, to get any browser but Opera to recognize the
> type text/xsl as XML MIME type; Firefox from 1.5 to Minefield does not
> seem to recognize it, and neither do IE6 and IE7 (on different versions
> of Windows, and even a Linux box for Firefox); my test case works in all
> these browsers if I simply use application/xml instead. Could you give
> an example of a web page that works in IE and Firefox, yet depends on
> them recognizing text/xsl as XML MIME type for XHR purposes?

It was added for compatibility with WebKit. I don't really feel strongly  
about it, but I don't see any harm in having it as a requirement for user  

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 14 May 2007 11:12:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC